W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Proposal: New Frame Size Text (was: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items)

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:11:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdifoF3aqQLB-EZjYqL3O2_uNEmNJ_+zAktu9zapKmT7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
The continuation bit is necessary for headers at a minimum, as we do have
headers which are > 65k, and something indicating either
end-of-semantic-header-block is necessary to support that.

I don't understand why it makes sense to limit header frames by the window
what if the window size is zero?
What if it is 1 byte.

I don't see any real benefits for limiting control frames to anything
having to do with the window size as compared to sending a SETTING and
having the default before there and having it completely decoupled from
window size, and I do see a number of complications and ewws :/

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com> wrote:

> While I love the idea of limiting frames to 65535B, I hate the idea of a
> continuation bit.
>     -Hasan
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
>> On 10 May 2013 10:40, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > [...] are we going to move forward with the frame
>> > continuation bit?
>> I think that this was implicit in our decision to limit frames to
>> 65535 bytes (or less).
Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 19:56:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:11 UTC